Leader casualties

Post bug reports and ask for support here.

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Post Reply
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

Leader casualties

Post by Jimmer »

A long time ago, we had a discussion about leader casualties, and whether leaders could die or should be allowed to die. A recent thread in another forum got me to thinking about this again.

My question is, can Napoleon die as a result of random rolls in the game?

The end of our last discussion (at least a year ago, long before Matrix) was that the game should be changed so leaders cannot die, but still can be out of commission for a period of time. Does anybody know if this change was ever implemented?

The reason I'm asking is because it seems ridiculous to allow Napoleon to die in a game billing itself as a "Napoleonic" game. Any other leader might be OK, but not him.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
obsidiandrag
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:02 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

RE: Leader casualties

Post by obsidiandrag »

I know that sucks for France but...

I agree with the posibility of it happening, as should all other leaders risk that fate. That is part of the game to see how you fare compared to historical events... If Wellington and the British had happened to take out Nappy in say 1806, it would have been a very different war, by making it so he doesent get hurt and all others risk it is unfair... hence the options for not having casualties.

last I knew it was still in for ALL leaders.
User avatar
Jimmer
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: Leader casualties

Post by Jimmer »

I agree that it might have been a historical risk he took, the fact of history is that he did NOT die, and the game needs to reflect that to stay a playable game. Napoleon is easily worth 100-150 victory points in this game, far surpassing any other single factor in the game. With him, France would have to play poorly to fail to win with a bid in the 30-40 range. But, without him, France has zero chance to make a bid of even 1.
 
Anyhow, the "fix" was going to be to allow injury casualties, but not dead leaders (permanent casualties). But, I think it was long ago lost to the Mists of Ravenloft or some other nether-worldly location. But, I don't think even that fix every got put in, as I seem to recall having a leader die in the 1.3 or 1.4 timeframe.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?
User avatar
Ted1066
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

RE: Leader casualties

Post by Ted1066 »

Jimmer, I totally disagree with you. France, of all nations, has the best chance of succeeding sans Napoleon. Although this was an optional EiA rule, all my ftf games played with it. In this computer version, just the other day I had Massena die on me after kicking the crap out of Charles in Italy. It sucks, but its an awesome game mechanic and one that the original designers wanted to incorporate. The fact is, leaders were always at risk on the battlefield. This rule helps to incorporate that variability and I don't think it should be changed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is an option toggle in this computer version to turn off leader casualties I believe. If someone doesn't want Napoleon dying, turn off this option.

Cheers,

Ted
no_dice
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:29 am

RE: Leader casualties

Post by no_dice »

Having leader casualties is a good reason for having one or two other leaders stacked with your big shots to lessen the odds of your number one guy dying from lead poisoning. It was a fact of life and should remain in the game.

no_dice
User avatar
pzgndr
Posts: 3189
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Leader casualties

Post by pzgndr »

I agree that it might have been a historical risk he took, the fact of history is that he did NOT die, and the game needs to reflect that to stay a playable game.

Jimmer raises a good point. If you get into a decent campaign game and Napoleon ends up dead in an early battle, or say Wellington or Blucher or any key historical leader dies early, then how many players would really want to continue playing??

At present we only have the game option for no leader casualties at all or leader casualties to include risk of death. Could we not have a third game option for leader casulties without death, where a "6" die roll would mean out for 6 months?
Bill Macon
Strategic Command Developer
Empires in Arms Developer
larrywrose
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:19 am

RE: Leader casualties

Post by larrywrose »

The group I used to play with we modified the 6 die roll to be 1 year instead of death, we did this because Charles and Napoleon died in the same battle in 1806 one game. Yes, using the leaders does expose them to death, but the game has no mechanics to promote new leaders to replace fallen leaders. For all we know the fact that one leader lived prevented an even better leader from moving up and becomming great.  How many time in history has someone in the background stepped up and taken over and done great? I am not suggesting we come up with a leader replacement system. On the other hand if we did, it might be fun to watch the Grand Vizer going against John with both sides praying for that stay bullet. [:D]
 
Larry W. Rose
User avatar
Ted1066
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

RE: Leader casualties

Post by Ted1066 »

Personally, I wouldn't play in a game that unleveled the playing field in that way. "All yours leaders are food for the grist mill, but not mine." The odds of a leader dying, per the EiA method, are 1 in 216 or roughly 0.46%. Those are pretty damn low odds. For fairness sake, either everyone agrees that everyones leaders are mortal (keeping leader casualties on) or everyone agrees that they are not (leader casualties off). Anything else is unfair.

I do agree that Napoleon or Charles dying in a battle has a profound impact on the game, but so does losing 150 points in a single combat - something that is also possible, but roughly the same statistical outcome.

The key point I want to get across here is that this game is not a historical simulation, it is a game based on history. The difference may be subtle, but the point is if EiA were a historical simulation there would be no point in playing the game at all - Napoleon loses, thanks for coming. As a game based on a period of history, the players create an alternate history within the framework of the game. Thus, what happened historically is of little importance.

Cheers,

Ted
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”